DE | EN

Aktuelles

PV News

Aktuelles

Hier finden Sie Neuigkeiten und Informationen aus Österreich, Europa und der Welt zu aktuellen Entwicklungen unter anderem in den Bereichen »Public Value«, »öffentlich-rechtliche Medien«, sowie »Qualitätsjournalismus«.

2023-04-13


Krisen, Krieg und Gewalt bedrohen die Pressefreiheit. Das ist das alarmierende Ergebnis des jährlichen "Press Freedom Index" der Nichtregierungsorganisation "Reporter ohne Grenzen".

Regierungen gefährden die Unabhängigkeit der Berichterstattung, der Vorwurf der "Lügenpresse" erschüttert das Vertrauen in die Glaubwürdigkeit der Medien, ein immer größer werdender Teil junger Menschen bezieht Information vorrangig aus kommerziellen Social Media-Angeboten, massive Kostensenkungen gefährden die redaktionelle Leistungsfähigkeit.

Sind Europas Qualitätsmedien in ihrer Existenz und Relevanz gefährdet? Welche Auswirkungen ergeben sich dadurch auf Gesellschaft und Demokratie? Und nicht zuletzt: Wie reagieren öffentlich-rechtliche Medien darauf?


Am internationalen Tag der Pressefreiheit diskutieren im ORF DialogForum:
Cilla Benkö, Generaldirektorin "Schwedisches Radio"
Fritz Hausjell, Präsident der "Reporter ohne Grenzen"
Michael Nikbakhsh, freier Journalist
Katharina Wagner, ORF-Korrespondentin Istanbul
Roger de Weck, ehemaliger Generaldirektor der Schweizerischen Radio- und Fernsehgesellschaft SRG


Moderation: Klaus Unterberger, ORF Public Value

In Kooperation mit der Schwedischen Botschaft, dem European Forum Alpbach und dem Alumniverband der Universität Wien.

Die DialogForen werden live gestreamt und zeitversetzt auf ORF III Kultur und Information ausgestrahlt.


[more]
2023-03-09

Der ORF ist der größte Auftraggeber der österreichischen Film- und Fernsehwirtschaft. Jedes Jahr investiert er rund 100 Millionen in den Film- und Produktionsstandort Österreich.

Grund genug zu fragen: Was macht den "österreichischen Film" eigentlich aus? Was unterscheidet öffentlich-rechtliche Filmproduktion von kommerzieller? Wie geht es in Zukunft weiter?



Foto: ORF/Martin Rattini

Im ORF-DialogForum diskutieren:
Sebastian Höglinger, Geschäftsführer der "Diagonale"

John Lueftner, Präsident der "Association of Austrian Filmproducers"

Katharina Schenk, ORF-Fernsehfilm

Kurt Brazda, Filmregisseur

Arash T. Riahi, Präsident der "Akademie des Österreichischen Films"

Clara Stern, Filmregisseurin


sowie

Michael Petzl, Landesschulsprecher Wien

Katharina Settele, Schauspielerin

Moderation: Klaus Unterberger


am 15.3.2023 im ORF- RadioKulturhaus

Livestream ab 13:00 Uhr auf zukunft.ORF.at.


Hinweis im Sinne des Kinos

1 Kinoabo - 18 Kinos - unbegrenzt Kinofilme sehen


Seit dem 16. März gibt es das "nonstop"-Kinoabo, mit dem es möglich ist, für 22 Euro pro Monat
18 ausgewählte Kinos in ganz Österreich zu besuchen.

Alle weiteren Informationen unter www.nonstopkino.at

Instagram: nonstopkino



[more]
2023-01-18

Der erfolgreichste Unternehmer.
Die schönste Frau.
Das beste Auto.

Die Superlative überbieten sich ebenso wie die Stereotype. Doch was bedeuten sie? Wer bestimmt, was ausgezeichnet wird? Was als vorbildhaft und anstrebenswert angesehen wird? Und nicht zuletzt: Was ist eigentlich (Medien-)Qualität und wem nützt sie?

Was gemeint ist, wenn von "Qualität" die Rede ist, diskutieren im ORF DialogForum

Franz Essl, Wissenschaftler des Jahres 2022

Wanda Moser-Heindl, Gründerin der SozialMarie

Daniela Kraus, Generalsekretärin des Presseclub Concordia

Florian Klenk, Chefredakteur des Falter

Mathias Huter, Obmann des Forum Informationsfreiheit


sowie

Jasmin Chalendi, Politologin und Jus-Studentin

Daniel Waidinger, Bundes und Wiener Landesjugendreferent YOUNG younion


Moderation: Klaus Unterberger


am 26.1.2023 im ORF- RadioKulturhaus

Livestream ab 13:00 Uhr auf zukunft.ORF.at.




[more]
2023-01-12

2022 wurde vom Public Value-Kompetenzzentrum des ORF ein Expert:innengespräch zum Bereich "Unterhaltung" durchgeführt: Expert:innen aus Wissenschaft, Medien, Kunst und Kultur diskutierten in zwei mehrstündigen, strukturierten Gesprächen mit ORF-Vertreter:innen die Qualität der ORF-Unterhaltungsangebote in Radio, Fernsehen und online.

Die Einladungsliste umfasste Wissenschaftler:innen österreichischer Bildungsinstitutionen, internationale Medienexpert:innen, Vertreter:innen der Jugend, der Frauen, sowie des Kreativsektors und kam auf Basis von Empfehlungen der ORF-Verantwortlichen einerseits und eigenständiger Recherche zu mit Unterhaltung befassten Wissenschaftler:innen und Medienexpert:innen zustande.


Teilnehmende externe Expert:innen:
- Prof. Mag. Kurt Brazda, Regisseur, Kameramann und Fotokünstler
- Jan Clausen, Factory92, Managing Partner
- David Dittrich, Universal Music Austria, Head of Artist Marketing
- Univ.-Prof. Dr. Jürgen Grimm, Universität Wien, Professor am Institut für Publizistik- und Kommunikationswissenschaft
- Univ.-Prof. Dr. Fritz Hausjell, Universität Wien, Professor am Institut für Publizistik- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, stellvertretender Institutsvorstand
- Thomas Heher, Wien macht Kultur, Geschäftsführung
- Christoph Kregl, Redroad Management, Geschäftsführung
- Regina "Gini" Lampl, Schauspielerin, Sängerin und Influencerin
- Univ.-Ass. Dr. phil. habil. Claudia Paganini, Hochschule für Philosophie in München, Professorin für Medienethik
- Cornelius Obonya, Schauspieler und Regisseur
- Florian Scheuba, Schauspieler, Kabarettist und Moderator
- Philipp Schild, Funk - Content Netzwerk von ARD und ZDF, Programmgeschäftsführer
- Rudi Schöller, Schauspieler, Kabarettist und Podcaster
- Julia Sobieszek, Künstleragentur Sobieszek, Agentin und Fernsehproduzentin
- Leonie-Rachel Soyel, Autorin, Bloggerin und Podcasterin
- Joanna Zhou, Content Creator auf YouTube, TikTok und Instagram

Moderation: Klaus Unterberger und Konrad Mitschka

[more]
2023-01-12

Am 20.10.2022 organisierte das Public Value Kompetenzzentrum des ORF den zweiten "Zukunftsdialog - next generation", zu dem es junge Menschen aus ganz Österreich einlud, um die Zukunft des ORF zu diskutieren.
Gerade in einer Zeit der digitalen Transformation und der veränderten Mediennutzung ist das Einbeziehen junger Expertise für den ORF von großer Relevanz.

Die Partizipation junger Menschen zu fördern sowie das Sammeln von Kritik und Erwartungen waren vorrangige Ziele der Veranstaltung. Gerade dieser gegenseitige Austausch hilft dem ORF erfolgreich in die Zukunft zu blicken.

Für den insgesamt vierstündigen Zukunftsdialog waren über 60 junge Menschen zum Gespräch mit jungen Programmmacher:innen eingeladen. Philipp Maschl (ZIB Magazin) und Ambra Schuster (ZIB TikTok) begrüßten die Teilnehmer:innen im ORF-Atrium "Hugo Portisch". Nach einer kurzen Einleitung von Klaus Unterberger (GPV) zu den Zielsetzungen des Gespräches wurde in fünf Kleingruppen zu den Themenkomplexen Information (Ambra Schuster), Unterhaltung und Sport (Philipp Maschl), Kultur und Bildung (Manon Soukup), Service (Jana Petrik) sowie Community (Claudia Fedorko) in zwei Runden diskutiert.

Die Ergebnisse der sehr lebendig geführten Debatten wurden schließlich u.a. vor dem Vorsitzenden des ORF-Stiftungsrats, Mitgliedern der ORF-Geschäftsführung sowie zahlreichen Sendungsverantwortlichen präsentiert.


[more]
2022-11-15

Am 11. Oktober 2023 fand das DialogForum "ZUSAMMEN - aber Wohin?" im Radiokulturhaus in Wien statt.
Krisen, Krieg und Katastrophenstimmen beherrschen die Schlagzeilen.
Bestimmen sie auch das Stimmungsbild und vor allem die Perspektiven der Menschen?
Gibt es positive Zukunftsbilder, jenseits der dystopischen Szenarien und Realitäten.
Diesen und anderen Fragen stellten sich:


Carmen Bayer, Armutskonferenz Salzburg

Franz Neunteufl, Interessensvertretung gemeinnütziger Organisationen

Esra Özmen, Musikerin

Sinus Zagar, Mitwirkender im Klimarat
Eva Sabine Kuntz, Deutschlandradio
Gini Lampl, TikTokerin
Robert Misik, Autor
Wolfgang Wagner, ORF-"Report"


Das BEST-OF der Sendung:



Die gesamte Sendung - moderiert von Klaus Unterberger - finden Sie hier.


[more]
2022-11-14

Für den ORF und alle öffentlich-rechtlichen Medien in Europa bringt 2023 neue Herausforderungen, Aufgaben, aber auch Chancen: Wie kann es gelingen mit den "Social-Media"-Angeboten von Facebook, TikTok, YouTube und Instagram Schritt zu halten? Was wird neu und anders? Wie kann der öffentlich-rechtliche Auftrag im digitalen Zeitalter erfüllt werden? Und nicht zuletzt: Wie können eigene Defizite und Strukturmängel überwunden werden?



Mit Blick auf den europäischen Horizont diskutierten am
18. November um 13.00 Uhr im RadioKulturhaus:


Robert Amlung, Digitale Strategie (ZDF)

Karen Donders, Director of Public Value (VRT)

Gerald Heidegger, Online Editor (ORF)
Smilla Buschbom, Jugendrat Wien
Michael Farthofer, Studierender an der Universität Wien


Moderation: Klaus Unterberger

Zum Stream ...


[more]
2022-09-30

Krisen, Krieg und Katastrophenstimmen beherrschen die Schlagzeilen. Bestimmen sie auch das Stimmungsbild und vor allem die Perspektiven der Menschen? Wohin bewegt sich unsere Gesellschaft? In Verunsicherung und Angst? Ist sozialer Zusammenhalt noch möglich, trotz Polarisierung und Segmentierung? Gibt es positive Zukunftsbilder, jenseits der dystopischen Szenarien und Realitäten? Beteiligen sich Medien an der Empörungsbewirtschaftung oder an der Suche nach dem "neuen WIR"?

13.00 Uhr

Carmen Bayer, Armutskonferenz Salzburg

Franz Neunteufl, Interessensvertretung gemeinnütziger Organisationen

Esra Özmen, Musikerin

Sinus Zagar, Mitwirkender im Klimarat

14.00 Uhr
Eva Sabine Kuntz, Deutschlandradio
Gini Lampl, TikTokerin
Robert Misik, Autor
Wolfgang Wagner, ORF-"Report"

Moderation: Klaus Unterberger, ORF Public Value

Dienstag, 11. Oktober 2022

Die DialogForen werden auf zukunft.ORF.at live gestreamt. Die Sendung ist außerdem am Mittwoch, 02.11.22 von 00:15-01:15 Uhr sowie Samstag, 05.11. von 08:30-09:30 Uhr auf ORF III zu sehen und steht danach für 7 Tage in der Mediathek zum Abruf bereit.


[more]
2022-09-28

RIPE, the most important academic conference on public service media, met in Vienna in 2022 and provided a forum to address diverse aspects of the media quality discourse from the perspective of diverse European research institutions. This year's keynote address "The War against the BBC - What's at Stake and Why it Matters" was given by Patrick Barwise. The LIVE STREAM of the first day of the conference at ORF - including the keynote speech - can also be found here.





The War against the BBC -

What's at Stake and Why It Matters

Keynote @RIPE2022 by Patrick Barwise


When Peter York and I began researching our book five years ago, some people thought the title - the war against the BBC - overstated. No one says that now. The 'war' we describe is a civil war within Britain. Autocrats and demagogues around the world also attack the BBC. But the book is about people attacking it in the UK. This is part of a worldwide drift towards reduced democratic freedom and accountability, weakened independent media and, as I'll show, less well-informed publics.

The book's subtitle is 'How an unprecedented combination of hostile forces is destroying Britain's greatest cultural institution… and why you should care'. Of course, the hostile forces include technology and consumption trends, online competitors and rising costs.
But they also include the deliberate influence of commercial and political vested interests, reinforced by free-market ideology.

Some commercial media leaders see the BBC as unhelpful competition, reducing their revenue and profit. The fact that this perception is largely unfounded doesn't help. Rupert Murdoch, in particular, has long claimed it crowds out commercial media, actually reducing consumer choice.
When Sky was part of his empire, he claimed that BBC TV provided unfair competition to it and BBC Online - by offering high-quality, open access, highly trusted, advertising-free online news and other content - materially reduced newspapers' online income. Having now sold his interest in Sky and invested in UK commercial radio, his attacks have switched to BBC Radio.

In reality, studies have consistently found no evidence that the BBC crowds out commercial media. There is even some evidence of the opposite: a 14-country study in 2013 found that, with the marked exception of the USA, countries with strong PSBs tended to have stronger commercial broadcasters, measured by per capita revenue. And US newspapers, with no BBC, find it just as hard to generate online advertising revenue to replace lost print revenue. In 2019, a government-commissioned review on financially sustainable journalism specifically rejected claims that BBC Online threatened UK newspapers, arguing instead that, 'curtailing the BBC's news offering would be counter-productive [as] the BBC offers the very thing this review aims to encourage: a source of reliable and high-quality news, with a focus on objectivity and impartiality, and independent from government'.

Because PSBs now deliver their mission online as well as through broadcast channels, many people - including this conference - prefer the term public service media or PSM. That's fine - as Juliet says of Romeo, 'what's in a name?' - unless it makes you underplay the continuing importance of broadcasting. All PSM are still mainly broadcasters in the sense that most of their money still goes into creating TV and radio content. They now distribute that content using both broadcast and online channels - but that, to me, is a secondary issue. We can all pretty much agree that a PSB is a national broadcaster whose licence requires it, as far as possible, to be universally available, deliver specific social benefits - not just entertainment - and be editorially independent.
The definition of PSM is, to me, less clear. For instance, does it include The Guardian, which certainly has a public service mission and is open source, non-profit and partly funded by voluntary donations?
Broadcasting is still enormously important.


The average Brit still consumes the BBC's services for two-and-a-half hours a day! 90 per cent of that is of TV and radio content - mostly consumed on broadcast channels. Those attempting a political or military coup still try to take over the national broadcaster to control the public's most important information source. And Russian state TV has been central to the Kremlin's - still largely successful - effort to build and sustain public support for the Ukraine war.

Even in stable democracies, politicians inevitably try to influence PSBs' political coverage - and the more widely consumed and highly trusted the PSB, the greater their motivation to do so. In Britain, it's a lot. In the US, not at all, except in its early days under Richard Nixon.
Nor are commercial and political vested interests always distinct. According to The Economist, when Silvio Berlusconi was the Italian prime minister, he controlled - among other media - 90 per cent of national TV broadcasting, either directly through his privately owned channels or indirectly by appointing supporters to manage RAI.

In Britain, the links between commercial and political vested interests aren't so extreme. But Rupert Murdoch, in particular, has used his control of the biggest newspaper group to build mutually beneficial relationships with most prime ministers since 1979, including Labour's Tony Blair.
These relationships are invariably bad for the BBC: Blair is the only prime minister who has ever forced the resignation of the BBC's chairman and director general.

It would be naive not to see this as a sort-of conspiracy.
Not a mad, overarching conspiracy like QAnon, more one where people with overlapping interests talk offline and co-ordinate their actions.
This is the bread and butter of local, national, international and organisational politics.

Whatever the specifics, all publicly-funded PSBs are now squeezed between reduced funding and ever-rising costs and competition.
In BBC's the case, the funding cuts since 2010 are much deeper than most people realise.

After the Conservatives' 2015 election victory, finance minister George Osborne had six secret meetings in eight weeks with Murdoch executives, including two with Murdoch himself. He then imposed the deepest ever cut in BBC funding - on top of one he'd already imposed in 2010.
By 2019, the real (inflation-adjusted) public funding of the BBC's UK services was 30 per cent down on 2010.


The BBC clawed some of that back through its much criticised decision to limit free TV licences for the over-75s to those in poorer households - and then persuading over 90 per cent of those no longer eligible to pay up.
But in January, the government announced another two-year licence fee freeze. With 9 per cent annual inflation, that will increase the cumulative cut in real funding since 2010 to almost 40 per cent by March 2024, with possibly worse to come.

The BBC has so far managed to protect its services through efficiency gains, commercial income growth and trimmed programme budgets.
But, as the cuts continue, it will increasingly have to replace expensive programmes like high-end dramas and natural history shows with cheaper ones and more repeats.
The risk is that this creates a vicious circle, with more people refusing to pay the licence fee, further reducing programme budgets, and so on, leading to a crisis sometime in the next four-to-five years.

PSBs in smaller countries have it even worse because their income depends on the population size, while production costs are fixed.
DR, the Danish PSB, once told me there are more boy scouts in the world than Danish speakers…

On top of these financial pressures and technology challenges, PSBs also face endless attacks on the accuracy and impartiality of their news coverage.
In the BBC's case, efforts to persuade the public not to trust it have, so far, been largely unsuccessful.
If UK adults are asked, 'Which ONE news source would you turn to for news you trust the most?', the BBC, on 51 per cent, completely dominates the responses, followed by ITV on 9 per cent, Sky 6 per cent, The Guardian 4 per cent, and Channel 4 4 per cent.
None of the right-wing anti-BBC newspapers gets more than 1 per cent - the same as Al Jazeera, Twitter and Facebook.

Government attacks on the BBC's impartiality are always framed as attempts to rectify a supposed left-wing bias. But is the BBC's news coverage systematically biased to the left?
In The War Against the BBC, we look at this in some detail.
None of the BBC's respectable critics - newspapers, politicians, think tanks - has ever seriously claimed that its news coverage is inaccurate.
Instead, the claim is that it is biased in its choice of topics (and how these are framed) and interviewees (and how they are interviewed).
In both football refereeing and news reporting, bias is very much in the eye of the beholder. So who's right about 'BBC bias'?
The best evidence is from Cardiff University analysis of the BBC's UK news coverage in 2007 and 2012.
This suggests that BBC News was marginally biased in favour of the government of the day in both years - but this bias was somewhat more when the Conservatives were in power in 2012 than under Labour in 2007 - the exact opposite of the repeated claim of left-wing bias.

Nor do perceptions among the general public support the claim that the BBC's news coverage is biased to the left.
Those who are older, socially conservative and right-leaning do tend to agree with this claim, but they are in a minority. An almost equal number - typically younger, socially liberal and left-leaning - see the BBC as biased to the right (and part of the 'Establishment'); while a large number in between see it as broadly impartial.

So, if the best evidence is that the BBC's news coverage doesn't systematically lean to the left, and most of the public don't think it leans to the left, why are most of the attacks on it from the right?
When we started researching the book, we expected to find some imbalance, with slightly more attacks from the right than from the left.
What we found was much more extreme: the organised attacks on the BBC - by people, as part of their day jobs at newspapers, political parties and think tanks - are overwhelmingly from the right.

We think there are five possible reasons for this imbalance:
First, ideology: free-marketeers will always see the BBC as an unnecessary or disproportionate 'intervention'. They think its only valid role is to address 'market failure', showing public service content that the market can't provide.
Secondly, commercial vested interests are mostly right-leaning.
Thirdly, resources: right-wing UK think tanks and political parties are better - and more opaquely - funded than those on the left.
Fourth, outlets: most UK newspapers lean to the right, especially if weighted by readership. (And yes, they still matter a lot).
Finally, what we've called the 'silent majority illusion': at least anecdotally, many on the right seem to be more likely (albeit mistakenly) to think most other people agree with them.

In summary: the BBC and other PSBs face an unprecedented combination of technology, consumption and market trends and deliberate undermining by hostile forces, overwhelmingly from the right.
But the biggest challenges are financial, especially for those, like the BBC, whose core funding is set by governments. They are caught between deep funding cuts, higher content and distribution costs, and ever-increasing competition.

Why should we care?
With burgeoning choice from pay TV and, now, the streamers, would it matter if, after 100 years - the BBC's centenary is next month - we were to lose PSB and leave broadcasting entirely to the market?
The answer is emphatically yes.
One reason is to do with universal access and shared experience: it's complicated, but the non-PSBs are typically available only to those willing and able to pay for them.
A second reason is that a well-run PSB is extremely good value for money - although achieving that is harder in a country with a small population.
Even in Britain, with 26 million households, people take the BBC for granted and argue that they shouldn't have to pay for it if they don't use it.
But in 2015 - the only time it's been measured - 99 per cent of households used its TV, radio or online services in a week.
The idea that a material number are forced to pay £159 and get no benefit over a whole year is nonsense.
Also in 2015, the BBC ran a study in which households that said the licence fee was not good value for money were paid to spend nine days with no BBC.
After nine days, 68% changed their minds, deciding it was good value for money, after all!
And when the study was repeated late last year, this proportion actually increased to 70%. The increase wasn't statistically significant, but nevertheless!

Finally, I argued earlier that if the challenges facing PSBs lead to a weakening of PSBs around the world, that will reinforce the drift towards reduced democratic freedom and accountability, weakened independent media, and less well-informed publics.
We now have direct evidence on the last point, about PSB's role in ensuring a well-informed public - the importance of which hardly needs stressing with a war in Europe and all the other challenges we're now facing.
A recent study by Zurich and Antwerp Universities compared the public's resilience to online disinformation in 18 countries. The strength of their PSBs was one of the key factors associated with greater resilience.
The most resilient countries were in northern and western Europe, led by the Nordics - closely followed by Britain, partly thanks to its strong PSB system, with the BBC at its heart.
Southern European countries such as Spain, Italy and Greece had more credulous populations.
And the US was in a category of its own, its population 'particularly susceptible' to disinformation.
Of course, there are many reasons for US vulnerability to online disinformation. But its weak PSB is one factor, as is the 1987 abolition of the Fairness Doctrine for broadcast news, opening the door to Fox News and shock jock radio - years before the social media that are now spreading the disinformation and reinforcing the divisions in US society.

Strong, properly funded public service broadcasting isn't just 'nice to have'. It's a key part of a healthy democracy. And, right now, it's hard to overstate the importance of the 'war' against it.
So, go out and make the PSBs' case!
Show their continuing usage and the value for money they give their viewers, listeners and online users.
Show their role in the national culture and in creating shared events that bring people together, when so much is driving them apart.
Above all, show the importance of impartial, trusted news that reaches across the whole of society, countering the disinformation and echo chambers that are undermining liberal democracy.
Because, more than anything else, that's what's really at stake.
Thank you.
What's at Stake and Why It Matters
When Peter York and I began researching our book five years ago, some people thought the title - the war against the BBC - overstated. No one says that now.
The 'war' we describe is a civil war within Britain.
Autocrats and demagogues around the world also attack the BBC. But the book is about people attacking it in the UK.
This is part of a worldwide drift towards reduced democratic freedom and accountability, weakened independent media and, as I'll show, less well-informed publics.

The book's subtitle is 'How an unprecedented combination of hostile forces is destroying Britain's greatest cultural institution… and why you should care'.
Of course, the hostile forces include technology and consumption trends, online competitors and rising costs.
But they also include the deliberate influence of commercial and political vested interests, reinforced by free-market ideology.

Some commercial media leaders see the BBC as unhelpful competition, reducing their revenue and profit. The fact that this perception is largely unfounded doesn't help.
Rupert Murdoch, in particular, has long claimed it crowds out commercial media, actually reducing consumer choice.
When Sky was part of his empire, he claimed that BBC TV provided unfair competition to it and BBC Online - by offering high-quality, open access, highly trusted, advertising-free online news and other content - materially reduced newspapers' online income.
Having now sold his interest in Sky and invested in UK commercial radio, his attacks have switched to BBC Radio.

In reality, studies have consistently found no evidence that the BBC crowds out commercial media.
There is even some evidence of the opposite: a 14-country study in 2013 found that, with the marked exception of the USA, countries with strong PSBs tended to have stronger commercial broadcasters, measured by per capita revenue.
And US newspapers, with no BBC, find it just as hard to generate online advertising revenue to replace lost print revenue.
In 2019, a government-commissioned review on financially sustainable journalism specifically rejected claims that BBC Online threatened UK newspapers, arguing instead that, 'curtailing the BBC's news offering would be counter-productive [as] the BBC offers the very thing this review aims to encourage: a source of reliable and high-quality news, with a focus on objectivity and impartiality, and independent from government'.

Because PSBs now deliver their mission online as well as through broadcast channels, many people - including this conference - prefer the term public service media or PSM.
That's fine - as Juliet says of Romeo, 'what's in a name?' - unless it makes you underplay the continuing importance of broadcasting.
All PSM are still mainly broadcasters in the sense that most of their money still goes into creating TV and radio content.
They now distribute that content using both broadcast and online channels - but that, to me, is a secondary issue.
We can all pretty much agree that a PSB is a national broadcaster whose licence requires it, as far as possible, to be universally available, deliver specific social benefits - not just entertainment - and be editorially independent.
The definition of PSM is, to me, less clear. For instance, does it include The Guardian, which certainly has a public service mission and is open source, non-profit and partly funded by voluntary donations?
Broadcasting is still enormously important.
The average Brit still consumes the BBC's services for two-and-a-half hours a day!
90 per cent of that is of TV and radio content - mostly consumed on broadcast channels.
Those attempting a political or military coup still try to take over the national broadcaster to control the public's most important information source.
And Russian state TV has been central to the Kremlin's - still largely successful - effort to build and sustain public support for the Ukraine war.
Even in stable democracies, politicians inevitably try to influence PSBs' political coverage - and the more widely consumed and highly trusted the PSB, the greater their motivation to do so. In Britain, it's a lot. In the US, not at all, except in its early days under Richard Nixon.
Nor are commercial and political vested interests always distinct. According to The Economist, when Silvio Berlusconi was the Italian prime minister, he controlled - among other media - 90 per cent of national TV broadcasting, either directly through his privately owned channels or indirectly by appointing supporters to manage RAI.

In Britain, the links between commercial and political vested interests aren't so extreme. But Rupert Murdoch, in particular, has used his control of the biggest newspaper group to build mutually beneficial relationships with most prime ministers since 1979, including Labour's Tony Blair.
These relationships are invariably bad for the BBC: Blair is the only prime minister who has ever forced the resignation of the BBC's chairman and director general.

It would be naive not to see this as a sort-of conspiracy.
Not a mad, overarching conspiracy like QAnon, more one where people with overlapping interests talk offline and co-ordinate their actions.
This is the bread and butter of local, national, international and organisational politics.

Whatever the specifics, all publicly-funded PSBs are now squeezed between reduced funding and ever-rising costs and competition.
In BBC's the case, the funding cuts since 2010 are much deeper than most people realise.
After the Conservatives' 2015 election victory, finance minister George Osborne had six secret meetings in eight weeks with Murdoch executives, including two with Murdoch himself. He then imposed the deepest ever cut in BBC funding - on top of one he'd already imposed in 2010.
By 2019, the real (inflation-adjusted) public funding of the BBC's UK services was 30 per cent down on 2010.
The BBC clawed some of that back through its much criticised decision to limit free TV licences for the over-75s to those in poorer households - and then persuading over 90 per cent of those no longer eligible to pay up.
But in January, the government announced another two-year licence fee freeze. With 9 per cent annual inflation, that will increase the cumulative cut in real funding since 2010 to almost 40 per cent by March 2024, with possibly worse to come.

The BBC has so far managed to protect its services through efficiency gains, commercial income growth and trimmed programme budgets.
But, as the cuts continue, it will increasingly have to replace expensive programmes like high-end dramas and natural history shows with cheaper ones and more repeats.
The risk is that this creates a vicious circle, with more people refusing to pay the licence fee, further reducing programme budgets, and so on, leading to a crisis sometime in the next four-to-five years.

PSBs in smaller countries have it even worse because their income depends on the population size, while production costs are fixed.
DR, the Danish PSB, once told me there are more boy scouts in the world than Danish speakers…

On top of these financial pressures and technology challenges, PSBs also face endless attacks on the accuracy and impartiality of their news coverage.
In the BBC's case, efforts to persuade the public not to trust it have, so far, been largely unsuccessful.
If UK adults are asked, 'Which ONE news source would you turn to for news you trust the most?', the BBC, on 51 per cent, completely dominates the responses, followed by ITV on 9 per cent, Sky 6 per cent, The Guardian 4 per cent, and Channel 4 4 per cent.
None of the right-wing anti-BBC newspapers gets more than 1 per cent - the same as Al Jazeera, Twitter and Facebook.

Government attacks on the BBC's impartiality are always framed as attempts to rectify a supposed left-wing bias. But is the BBC's news coverage systematically biased to the left?
In The War Against the BBC, we look at this in some detail.
None of the BBC's respectable critics - newspapers, politicians, think tanks - has ever seriously claimed that its news coverage is inaccurate.
Instead, the claim is that it is biased in its choice of topics (and how these are framed) and interviewees (and how they are interviewed).
In both football refereeing and news reporting, bias is very much in the eye of the beholder. So who's right about 'BBC bias'?
The best evidence is from Cardiff University analysis of the BBC's UK news coverage in 2007 and 2012.
This suggests that BBC News was marginally biased in favour of the government of the day in both years - but this bias was somewhat more when the Conservatives were in power in 2012 than under Labour in 2007 - the exact opposite of the repeated claim of left-wing bias.

Nor do perceptions among the general public support the claim that the BBC's news coverage is biased to the left.
Those who are older, socially conservative and right-leaning do tend to agree with this claim, but they are in a minority. An almost equal number - typically younger, socially liberal and left-leaning - see the BBC as biased to the right (and part of the 'Establishment'); while a large number in between see it as broadly impartial.

So, if the best evidence is that the BBC's news coverage doesn't systematically lean to the left, and most of the public don't think it leans to the left, why are most of the attacks on it from the right?
When we started researching the book, we expected to find some imbalance, with slightly more attacks from the right than from the left.
What we found was much more extreme: the organised attacks on the BBC - by people, as part of their day jobs at newspapers, political parties and think tanks - are overwhelmingly from the right.

We think there are five possible reasons for this imbalance:
First, ideology: free-marketeers will always see the BBC as an unnecessary or disproportionate 'intervention'. They think its only valid role is to address 'market failure', showing public service content that the market can't provide.
Secondly, commercial vested interests are mostly right-leaning.
Thirdly, resources: right-wing UK think tanks and political parties are better - and more opaquely - funded than those on the left.
Fourth, outlets: most UK newspapers lean to the right, especially if weighted by readership. (And yes, they still matter a lot).
Finally, what we've called the 'silent majority illusion': at least anecdotally, many on the right seem to be more likely (albeit mistakenly) to think most other people agree with them.

In summary: the BBC and other PSBs face an unprecedented combination of technology, consumption and market trends and deliberate undermining by hostile forces, overwhelmingly from the right.
But the biggest challenges are financial, especially for those, like the BBC, whose core funding is set by governments. They are caught between deep funding cuts, higher content and distribution costs, and ever-increasing competition.

Why should we care?
With burgeoning choice from pay TV and, now, the streamers, would it matter if, after 100 years - the BBC's centenary is next month - we were to lose PSB and leave broadcasting entirely to the market?
The answer is emphatically yes.
One reason is to do with universal access and shared experience: it's complicated, but the non-PSBs are typically available only to those willing and able to pay for them.
A second reason is that a well-run PSB is extremely good value for money - although achieving that is harder in a country with a small population.
Even in Britain, with 26 million households, people take the BBC for granted and argue that they shouldn't have to pay for it if they don't use it.
But in 2015 - the only time it's been measured - 99 per cent of households used its TV, radio or online services in a week.
The idea that a material number are forced to pay £159 and get no benefit over a whole year is nonsense.
Also in 2015, the BBC ran a study in which households that said the licence fee was not good value for money were paid to spend nine days with no BBC.
After nine days, 68% changed their minds, deciding it was good value for money, after all!
And when the study was repeated late last year, this proportion actually increased to 70%. The increase wasn't statistically significant, but nevertheless!

Finally, I argued earlier that if the challenges facing PSBs lead to a weakening of PSBs around the world, that will reinforce the drift towards reduced democratic freedom and accountability, weakened independent media, and less well-informed publics.
We now have direct evidence on the last point, about PSB's role in ensuring a well-informed public - the importance of which hardly needs stressing with a war in Europe and all the other challenges we're now facing.
A recent study by Zurich and Antwerp Universities compared the public's resilience to online disinformation in 18 countries. The strength of their PSBs was one of the key factors associated with greater resilience.
The most resilient countries were in northern and western Europe, led by the Nordics - closely followed by Britain, partly thanks to its strong PSB system, with the BBC at its heart.
Southern European countries such as Spain, Italy and Greece had more credulous populations.
And the US was in a category of its own, its population 'particularly susceptible' to disinformation.
Of course, there are many reasons for US vulnerability to online disinformation. But its weak PSB is one factor, as is the 1987 abolition of the Fairness Doctrine for broadcast news, opening the door to Fox News and shock jock radio - years before the social media that are now spreading the disinformation and reinforcing the divisions in US society.

Strong, properly funded public service broadcasting isn't just 'nice to have'. It's a key part of a healthy democracy. And, right now, it's hard to overstate the importance of the 'war' against it.
So, go out and make the PSBs' case!
Show their continuing usage and the value for money they give their viewers, listeners and online users.
Show their role in the national culture and in creating shared events that bring people together, when so much is driving them apart.
Above all, show the importance of impartial, trusted news that reaches across the whole of society, countering the disinformation and echo chambers that are undermining liberal democracy.
Because, more than anything else, that's what's really at stake.


Thank you.



[more]
2022-04-08

Die Beschäftigten der öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunkanstalt BHRT in Bosnien und Herzegowina protestierten am 28. März gegen die "systematische Zerstörung" der Organisation, nachdem bekannt wurde, dass die Gehälter von über 870 Beschäftigten aufgrund von Schulden bei der Steuerverwaltung des Landes nicht bezahlt werden können.
Die Bankkonten des BHRT sind wegen massiver Schulden in Höhe von 32 Millionen Euro bei der Steuerverwaltung von Bosnien und Herzegowina blockiert, was nach Ansicht der Beschäftigten das Ergebnis von Missmanagement seitens der Behörden und einer "systematischen Zerstörung" der öffentlich-rechtlichen Medien ist.
Die unabhängige Gewerkschaft der BHRT-Beschäftigten organisierte den Protest gemeinsam mit den Beschäftigten, die in diesem Monat ihr Gehalt nicht erhalten werden. Sie forderten, dass "die Parlamentarier aufhören sollten, mit dem Leben von mehr als 800 Familien zu spielen", und erinnerten sie daran, dass stabile öffentlich-rechtliche Medien eine der 14 Prioritäten sind, die die Europäische Union für Bosnien und Herzegowina als Voraussetzung für die Beitrittsverhandlungen festgelegt hat.
Nach Angaben des EJF-Mitglieds, der Journalistenvereinigung von Bosnien-Herzegowina (BHN), haben bereits 84 BHRT-Journalisten ihren Arbeitsplatz verloren, und einige von ihnen wurden bereits darüber informiert, dass ihre Verträge nach dem 1. April nicht mehr verlängert werden.
Die EJF, EBU und SEEMO fordern die Regierung und alle relevanten verantwortlichen Stellen auf eine nachhaltige Lösung für die Finanzierung von BHRT zu finden, die Schulden, die durch das Versäumnis des öffentlichen Rundfunks in der Republika Srpska, RTRS, verursacht wurden, BHRT den prozentualen Anteil der Einnahmen aus den im Land erhobenen Rundfunkgebühren zu zahlen, unverzüglich zu begleichen, die Nachhaltigkeit der Finanzierung und die Unabhängigkeit der öffentlich-rechtlichen Medien zu gewährleisten.

Mehr:


https://www.ifj.org/media-centre/news/detail/category/press-releases/article/bosnia-and-herzegovina-bhrt-public-service-media-workers-protest-against-organisations-systematic.html

https://www.ebu.ch/news/2022/03/bosnia-herzegovina-public-service-broadcaster-threatened-with-closure


[more]
2022-04-08

Die BBC hat ihren Jahresplan vorgelegt. Das erklärte Ziel, noch größeren Mehrwert für die gesamte Bevölkerung zu schaffen.
Der Bericht legt fünf strategische Prioritäten fest, auf die sich unsere Pläne für 2022/23 stützen:
• Stärkung der Unparteilichkeit
• Schaffung von unverwechselbaren, hochwirksamen Inhalten
• Umgestaltung des digitalen Angebots und der Fähigkeiten der BBC
• Beschleunigung des kommerziellen und globalen Wachstums
• Umsetzung der BBC-Reform, Annäherung an das Publikum in ganz Großbritannien und Bewältigung der Auswirkungen des ersten Jahres der neuen Lizenzgebührenregelung.
Im Januar dieses Jahres wurde bekannt gegeben, dass die Rundfunkgebühren ab 2022/23 für zwei Jahre eingefroren werden und dann in den folgenden vier Jahren entsprechend der Inflation steigen.
Durch sorgfältiges Finanzmanagement geht die BBC nach eigenen Angaben in das kommende Jahr mit einer starken finanziellen Position, die sie durch das erste Jahr der Regelung helfen wird. Allerdings muss die BBC bis 2027/28 jährliche Einsparungen in Höhe von 285 Mio. £ erzielen und auf die immer stärker werdende Superinflation auf dem Medienmarkt reagieren. Die BBC will im Mai ihre längerfristige Strategie vorstellen, die darlegen wird, wie die BBC auch in der verbleibenden Zeit der Charta eine erfolgreiche Organisation für das Land sein kann und wie sie mit diesem Ressourcendruck umgehen will.

Der detaillierte BBC Annual Plan ist hier zu finden: https://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/documents/bbc-annual-plan-2022-2023.pdf

[more]
2022-03-30

Die sozialen Folgen der Pandemie haben ebenso wie der Krieg in der Ukraine unsere einst stabilen Gesellschaften erschüttert. Viele reagieren mit Verunsicherung, persönlichem Schutzbedürfnis und der Angst vor drohenden Veränderungen.
Welche Herausforderungen erwarten uns? Bedrohen Polarisierung und Kampfrhetorik die Demokratie oder führen die dramatischen Krisenszenarien zu mehr Solidarität und gesellschaftlichem Zusammenhalt? Wenn ja, wie kann ein "neues WIR" gelingen? Was können Medien dazu beitragen?

Im DialogForum diskutieren:

13:00
Daniel Landau, Initiator #YesWeCare
Günther Ogris, Sozialwissenschaftliches Institut SORA
Lena Schilling, Klimaaktivistin und Gründerin des Jugendrats
Beate Winkler, Initiatorin #Zusammen

14:00
Michael Jungwirth, stv. Chefredakteur "Kleine Zeitung"
Stefan Raue, Intendant Deutschlandradio
Ina Zwerger, Ö1 Radiokolleg & Reparatur der Zukunft

Sebastian Kiss, Teilnehmer SAG'S MULTI!
Zainab Müller, Teilnehmerin SAG'S MULTI!

Moderation: Klaus Unterberger, ORF Public Value

Mittwoch, 20. April 2022, 13.00 Uhr
ORF RadioKulturhaus, Studio 3
Argentinierstraße 30a, 1040 Wien

Die DialogForen werden auf zukunft.ORF.at live gestreamt und zeitversetzt auf ORF III Kultur und Information ausgestrahlt.

[more]
2022-03-10

Die letzten Jahre: Klimakrise, Flüchtlingskrise, Terrorkrise, Regierungskrise, Wirtschaftskrise, Coronakrise - und dann rückt plötzlich Krieg ganz nahe. Gerade die junge Generation des Landes spürt die Auswirkungen auf ihr Alltagsleben und ihre Zukunftsüberlegungen ganz besonders. Ist die Generation Z in den Jahren ihres Erwachsenwerdens tatsächlich zur "Generation Krise" geworden? 44 Fragen auf der Ö3-Homepage oe3.orf.at ermöglichen Einblicke in das Innenleben einer geforderten Generation. Unterstützt wird das Projekt von ORF Public Value, wissenschaftlich begleitet vom Sozialforschungsinstitut SORA.

#blicknachvorne - Hitradio Ö3 als breite Plattform

Hitradio Ö3 startet nach Jahren der verschiedenen Krisensituationen eine Online-Umfrage und wird den ganzen März über in allen Ö3-Kanälen zur Plattform für die Selbstvermessung der Generation Z: Wie sieht die junge Generation des Landes ihr Leben, was fühlt sie, was belastet sie, wo fühlt sie sich alleingelassen, was ist ihr wichtig, was nicht, was stimmt sie zuversichtlich, was fordert sie, was will sie einbringen und was soll in Zukunft anders werden?

44 Fragen auf der Ö3-Homepage - von Klimawandel und Coronafolgen über Kriegsangst bis zu Political Correctness

Die Basis für die Selbstvermessung und breite Diskussion sind 44 Fragen quer durch alle Lebensbereiche in einem interaktiven Umfragetool auf der Ö3-Homepage. Vier Wochen lang werden sie vernetzt in allen Ö3-Kanälen zur Diskussion gestellt: Wie blickt die Generation auf das Weltgeschehen, auf zwei Jahre Corona-Pandemie und die Folgen, auf die großen Angstthemen von Krieg über Atomkraft bis zum Klimawandel, auf Geschlechterfragen, die Arbeitswelt, Familie, Sex, Political Correctness, Solidarität, auf sich selbst? Und vor allem geht der Blick in die Zukunft: Wie soll es jetzt weitergehen? Lähmt die Krisenstimmung oder motiviert sie zu einem Aufbruch und Neustart? Was hat sich im direkten Vergleich zu den Ergebnissen der Ö3-Umfrage "Generation… Corona!?" im März 2021 verändert? Und was kann das ganze Land davon lernen, wie die junge Generation denkt und in die Zukunft blickt? Wissenschaftlich begleitet und ausgewertet wird das Projekt vom Sozialforschungsinstitut SORA.

Generation… Krise!? als multimediales ORF-Projekt

Die Umfrage wird in allen ORF-Medien zum Thema: Den ganzen März über werden die Fragen präsentiert, die Zwischenergebnisse beleuchtet und dann die Endergebnisse zur Diskussion gestellt. So wird aus "Generation… Krise!?" ein multimediales ORF-Projekt für die Generation Z.

"Was haben die Krisenjahre mit uns gemacht? Und was machen wir jetzt draus?"
Die Fragen an die Generation Z - ab sofort auf der Ö3-Homepage:
https://oe3.orf.at

[more]
2022-02-22

Knapp zwei Jahre Pandemie haben manche aus der Bahn geworfen und viele an Home-Schooling oder Home-Office gewöhnt, an das Alleinsein und die immer wieder verschobene Hoffnung auf ein baldiges Ende der Beschränkungen. Wie ist es um die Jungen post Corona bestellt? Wie blickt eine Generation auf das Weltgeschehen, auf Geschlechterfragen und nicht zuletzt auf sich selbst? Folgt der Isolation ein Aus- und Aufbruch? Kommen neue Visionen,
neue Initiative und neuer Mut? Und nicht zuletzt: welche Rolle spielen dabei die Medien?

Zum Start der Ö3-Aktion "Generation ... Krise!" und anlässlich des internationalen Frauentages diskutieren im ORF-DialogForum:

13:00
Tristan Horx, Zukunftsforscher
Tina Ritschl, Ö3
Richard Tiefenbacher, ÖGJ
Martina Zandonella, SORA

14:00
Lisa Hermanns, HOSI Wien
Claus Pirschner, FM4, Gleichstellungsbeauftragter des ORF
Vanessa Spanbauer, freie Journalistin und Historikerin
Elisabeth Ivancich, Landjugend

Moderation: Klaus Unterberger

Montag, 7. März 2022
ORF RadioKulturhaus, Studio 3
Argentinierstraße 30a, 1040 Wien


Die DialogForen werden auf zukunft.ORF.at live gestreamt und zeitversetzt auf ORF III Kultur und Information ausgestrahlt.

[more]
2022-01-24

Um der Bedrohung unserer Demokratie durch Verschwörungstheorien und Digitalgiganten zu begegnen, braucht es ein öffentlich-rechtliches Internet. Das fordert Christian Fuchs, Professor für Medien, Kommunikation und Gesellschaft an der University of Westminster in London in einem Artikel für das ipg-Journal der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.

"Die Internetplattformen, über die Verschwörungstheorien und Ideologien primär verbreitet werden, gehören globalen Konzernen, die dem Profitinteresse ihrer Eigentümer verpflichtet sind. Sie haben zu einer Art digitaler fast food-Medienkultur beigetragen, die von schnellen, kurzlebigen, oberflächlichen und werbungsdurchsetzten Meinungs- und Informationsfetzen lebt. Es fehlt uns im Internet an Zeit für tiefgehende politische Debatten, wodurch die Echokammern, die Polarisierung und die Kolonialisierung der Öffentlichkeit durch Kommerz und Ideologie weiter vorangetrieben werden.

Die Herausforderung besteht also in der Stärkung der Demokratie und der demokratischen Öffentlichkeit bei gleichzeitigem Ausbau und Weiterentwicklung des Wohlfahrtsstaates als Teil einer post-neoliberalen Wende. Öffentlich-rechtliche Medien haben in der Pandemie einerseits als Informations- und Bildungsquellen großen Zuspruch erfahren. Andererseits werden ihre Existenz und die Zulässigkeit von Rundfunkgebühren aber immer wieder von ihren Gegnern, insbesondere im politisch rechten Lager, in Frage gestellt. Um von seinen eigenen Skandalen abzulenken ("Partygate"), kündigte etwa der britische Premier Boris Johnson unlängst an, die Rundfunkgebühr abzuschaffen, was unweigerlich zur Zerschlagung der BBC führen würde.

Um die Öffentlichkeit zu stärken und die Demokratie zu retten, brauchen wir nicht weniger, sondern mehr öffentlich-rechtliche Medien."


[Den Artikel in voller Länge finden Sie hier. (externer Link)]

[more]
2022-01-03

DialogForum:Was kommt 2022?Pandemie und Klimakatastrophe, Korruptionsskandale und Regierungskrisen: 2021 stand im Zeichen dystopischer Szenarien und disruptiver Veränderungen. Die Frage ist: Was wird 2022 anders? Im ORF DialogForum diskutieren Expertinnen und Experten sowie Journalistinnen und Journalisten die Zukunft. Müssen wir uns weiter vor der Pandemie fürchten? Können wir auf zukunftsfähige Klimapolitik hoffen? Was können wir in Kultur, Politik, Gesellschaft und Medien erwarten? Und wie reagiert der ORF?


12 Uhr: Klima, Medien & Kultur
Ingrid Brodnig, "profil"
Silvia Lahner, Ö1 Kultur
Reinhard Steurer, Institut für Wald-, Umwelt- und Ressourcenpolitik
Ambra Schuster, ZIB TikTok

13 Uhr: Gesellschaft, Politik & Wissenschaft
Peter Filzmaier, Donau-Universität Krems
Maria Katharina Moser, Diakonie
Elke Ziegler, Robert-Hochner-Preisträgerin 2021, Ö1 Wissenschaft
Emanuel Liedl, "Am Schauplatz" & "Eco"

Moderation:
Klaus Unterberger

Dienstag, 18. Jänner 2022
ORF RadioKulturhaus, Studio 3
Argentinierstraße 30a, 1040 Wien

Die DialogForen werden auf zukunft.ORF.at live gestreamt und zeitversetzt auf ORF III Kultur und Information ausgestrahlt.


[more]
2021-10-29

Die Digitalisierung ist ein Phänomen, das zusehends alle gesellschaftlichen Bereiche durchdringt. Aber: Vielfach ist das Thema männlich dominiert. Mitunter ist das zu bemerken, wenn in ORF-Sendungen nach weiblicher Digital-Expertise gesucht wird. Wie lässt sich das ändern? Wo sind die Fachfrauen in den Bereichen Digitalisierung und Technologie? Was können die Medien, insbesondere öffentlich-rechtliche, tun, um die Sichtbarkeit von Expertinnen zu stärken? Welche Initiativen gibt es?

Eine Veranstaltung von Public Value und Gleichstellung mit:

Doris Schmidauer, Initiative Digitalisierung Chancengerecht
Beate Winkler, Initiative Digitalisierung Chancengerecht
Silvia Neumann, FEMtech Expertinnendatenbank
Katia Rössner, ORF Gleichstellung
Viktoria Tatschl, ORF Public Value
Michael Schmid, ORF Player


Moderation: Mari Lang

Donnerstag, 4. November 2021, 11.00 Uhr

Die Veranstaltung findet online statt.

Sie können den LIVESTREAM via der.ORF.at und zukunft.ORF.at mitverfolgen.


[more]
2021-10-12

Katastrophen, Krisen und extremes Wetter: Die Meldungen über die Klimakrise sind niederschmetternd.

Wie viel Alarm, wie viel Emotion darf, wie viel muss dazu in den Medien sein? Journalist:innen sollen deutlicher, öfter und vielfältiger über die Klimakrise berichten, fordern die einen. Die anderen mahnen ein, dass sich Qualitätsjournalismus nie mit einer Sache gemein machen darf.
Wie sollen öffentlich-rechtliche Medien darauf reagieren? Welche Rolle kommt seriöser Berichterstattung zu?

Ein DialogForum zu Klimakrise und Journalismus mit

Wolfgang Blau, Reuters Institut der Universität Oxford
Martha Krumpeck, Extinction Rebellion
Anita Malli, ORF Nachhaltigkeit

Moderation: Klaus Unterberger, ORF Public Value

Donnerstag, 28. Oktober 2021, 19.00 Uhr
ORF RadioKulturhaus, Studio 3,
Argentinierstraße 30a, 1040 Wien

Die DialogForen werden auf zukunft.ORF.at gestreamt und zeitversetzt auf ORF III ausgestrahlt.

[more]
2021-09-17

Anlässlich der Präsentation der Public Value Jahresstudie steht der Public Value Tag im Zeichen wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnis zu Medienqualität: Wie kann die digitale Transformation gelingen?






10.00 Uhr: Public Service Manifest
Nicola Frank, European Broadcasting Union
Christian Fuchs, University of Westminster
Fritz Hausjell, Universität Wien
Gisela Reiter, FH Wien

11.00 Uhr: Public Service Internet
Leonhard Dobusch, Universität Innsbruck
Simone Grössing, ORF Denkraum
Christoph Neuberger, FU Berlin und Weizenbaum-Institut für die vernetzte Gesellschaft
Susanne Pfab, ARD-Generalsekretariat

13.00 Uhr: Künstliche Intelligenz und Qualitätsjournalismus
Dieter Bornemann, ORF Redakteursrat
Reinhard Christl, Medienökonom
Lena Doppel-Prix, Social Media Beratung
Matthias Pfeffer, Pfeffer Media

14.00 Uhr: Public Service Plattform
Stefan Apfl, Hashtag
Paul Keller, Shared Digital European Public Sphere
Jan-Hendrik Passoth, Europa-Universität Viadrina
Barbara Thomaß, Ruhr-Universität Bochum

Moderation: Klaus Unterberger, ORF Public Value

Montag, 4. Oktober 2021, 10.00-15.00 Uhr
ORF RadioKulturhaus, Studio 3,
Argentinierstraße 30a, 1040 Wien

Die DialogForen werden auf zukunft.ORF.at gestreamt und zeitversetzt auf ORF III ausgestrahlt. Anmeldungen an praesentation@orf.at oder telefonisch unter (01) 878 78-14384

Die Veranstaltung folgt dem 1-G-Prinzip; ein tagesaktueller Test muss beim Eintritt vorgewiesen werden. Ab 9.00 Uhr gibt es im ORF RadioKulturhaus eine Gratis-Testmöglichkeit für Besucherinnen und Besucher.

[more]
2021-09-10


This book presents the collectively authored Public Service Media and Public Service Internet Manifesto and accompanying materials.The Internet and the media landscape are broken. The dominant commercial Internet platforms endanger democracy. They have created a communications landscape overwhelmed by surveillance, advertising, fake news, hate speech, conspiracy theories, and algorithmic politics. Commercial Internet platforms have harmed citizens, users, everyday life, and society. Democracy and digital democracy require Public Service Media. A democracy-enhancing Internet requires Public Service Media becoming Public Service Internet platforms - an Internet of the public, by the public, and for the public; an Internet that advances instead of threatens democracy and the public sphere. The Public Service Internet is based on Internet platforms operated by a variety of Public Service Media, taking the public service remit into the digital age. The Public Service Internet provides opportunities for public debate, participation, and the advancement of social cohesion.

Accompanying the Manifesto are materials that informed its creation: Christian Fuchs' report of the results of the Public Service Media/Internet Survey, the written version of Graham Murdock's online talk on public service media today, and a summary of an ecomitee.com discussion of the Manifesto's foundations.

The Manifesto can be signed by visiting http://bit.ly/signPSManifesto

[more]
More entries:
1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13 

PUBLIC VALUE REPORT 2023/24
What do you get?
In TV, radio, online, the nine national studios, the cooperations with 3sat and ARTE? What does the ORF provide in return for 50 cents per day and household? How does it fulfill its public service mandate? Here you will find 50 specific questions to the ORF and 50 specific answers.

QUALITY CONTROL
Qualtätsheft. Qualität auf dem Prüfstand
Quality Booklet
The ORF is committed to an extensive quality assurance system which is to control and optimise the fulfilment of the legal public service mandate and optimise the fulfilment of its legal public service mandate. This first-ever collection of articles documents the individual measures and provides answers how academics and media professionals assess the quality of public service broadcasting. [more] 

EQUALITY
Expert*innen DB

Die ORF Expertinnen-Datenbank
The aim of the Expert Women Database is to improve or increase the visibility and perceptibility of women experts in the ORF media of television, radio and online. The Expert Women Database is an initiative of ORF Equality and the Public Value Competence Center. [more]

NETWORKING
Zukunftsprojekt: Denk|Raum
Denk|Raum
The Denk|Raum is an offer for young media professionals at ORF. In penal discussions we deal with topics that concern our future: digital transformation, new technologies, innovation, but also corporate culture, transparency, independence and reliability. We talk about the ORF of the future. How we can change it and shape it. [more] 

PUBLIC VALUE
The secret of the colors
ORF Public Value is defined by five quality dimensions and 18 performance categories. They are derived from the ORF Act, the ORF programme directives, the ORF guiding principles and current requirements in the society and media developments. [more]

VIDEOS
TransFORM-Studio
What are the Keys for a Successful Digital Transformation? Isabelle Richter & Viktoria Tatschl in conversation with ORF-employees. [Die Videos]